OK, let’s admit South Africa and Israel are equivalent moral cases, says Stanley Fish

by on March 16, 2009 21

But, writing in the Times, he's against an academic boycott of Israel, as a blunt instrument you only get out when you're dealing with the Third Reich.

About Philip Weiss

Philip Weiss is Founder and Co-Editor of Mondoweiss.net.
Posted in BDS, Israel/Palestine, US Policy in the Middle East

{ 21 comments... read them below or add one }

  1. Richard Witty says:
    March 16, 2009 at 12:14 pm

    If there were an academic boycott of Palestinian story, there would never have been any serious New Historian research, no presence of people like Eqbal Ahmad, or Edward Said on any American faculty.

    Applied in Israel, the range of information that Israelis would get to think about would be further and further limited.

    Research, dialog, even confrontation is what is NEEDED.

    Peace doesn't happen with people that don't know each other. It only happens when the humanity of the other becomes obvious, a human presence.

  2. marc b. says:
    March 16, 2009 at 1:50 pm

    RWitty, you can't play both Pollyanna and Bismarck. It is too much of a contradiction, even for you. To stretch the theatre metaphor a bit further, Israel has chosen the role of the 'mad dog' of the Middle East: There is no meaningful dialogue at present with the 'mad dog' as potential negotiating partner, and there won't be in the future without a firm hand exercised by Israel's benefactor.

  3. Chris Berel says:
    March 16, 2009 at 2:35 pm

    Since Richard plays neither, there is no stretch required. On the other hand, Marc, you can't play pinnochio and Geppetto. However, it does appear that you are operating your own strings and you still sound stupid and racist.

  4. LeaNder says:
    March 16, 2009 at 3:08 pm

    Not quite, Phil. I absolutely agree with his argument, as I would feel lists–to make the tool, less blunt–revolting. The only time he made me hesitate was in fact, when he alluded to academics during the Nazi reign. Some surely fled into the Ivory Towers, but as an overall impression they all somehow surrendered to the Zeitgeist. And that's true even, maybe especially in the arts. You notice a dominant shift in the topics. That's a complicated issue for me. What about the lawyers that created the legal structure the Nazis needed …?

    The real question is, should the policies (whatever they are) of a country an academic happens to live in ever be a reason for denying her the courtesies academics extend to each other in recognition of the collaborative nature of the work they do? (Yes, I would include academics from the Third Reich.) That question has the advantage of facing squarely the issue of what academic work is and isn’t, an issue that is obscured if you’re just toting up and rank-ordering atrocities as a preliminary to determining which scholars you will or won’t deal with.

    But yes, I basically support only a very targeted boycott as the Hampshire college "tried". But I am against it in the field of culture. And I don't think that's a paradox, if you consider dialog the absolute necessity.

  5. 5 dancing shlomos says:
    March 16, 2009 at 3:51 pm

    israel, zionism are worse than s.a.; worse than 3rd reich. only america is comparable to the jewish state of the jews.

    every aspect of israel and jews within israel and external supporters of israel should have 100% boycott.

  6. onlooker says:
    March 16, 2009 at 4:02 pm

    @ CB

    "However, it does appear that you are operating your own strings and you still sound stupid and racist."

    This is exactly how many of us see you, Bill Pearlman, aka SOG, aka SOG ete.

  7. 5 dancing shlomos says:
    March 16, 2009 at 4:08 pm

    and complete sanctions and trials (short ones) and executions.

  8. citizen says:
    March 16, 2009 at 4:09 pm

    @ LeaNder

    Both the Ivory Tower and the lawyers were complicit in the Third Reich. They are equally complicit in the USA now as to enabling Israel to do what it does. I don't understand what you do not understand. Help me.

  9. LeaNder says:
    March 16, 2009 at 5:03 pm

    Phil writes, Stanley Fish considers it a blunt instrument ONLY if it concerns Nazi academics. I think, Fish writes even "Nazi scholars" shouldn't be boycotted. He probably puts it in brackets, since they obviously can't be anymore.

    But the Nazi context of course leads us to intellectual guilt. Who is more guilty the one that invents torture techniques or the one who applies them? The traditional line of thought since academics only work in the intellectual field they can't be guilty. And I think, I wouldn't follow him down that lane.

    I knew one academic a scholar of Classical Philology. He told me, he tried to write between the lines. To use topics he found telling considering the Nazis thought; he never completely convinced me. But then, he was one of the only ones that talked about his experience freely, and that was much when I met him. Obviously Classical Philology wasn't really useful to the Nazis.

  10. LeaNder says:
    March 16, 2009 at 5:12 pm

    Correction: The traditional line of thought runs something like

    I have to admit that my rage seeing many Nazi academic continue with no problems at all as has diminished slightly. Quite obviously since they have gone by now.

    But it was my most urgent question to my father, shouldn't we always first question what our work serves. …

    An old lady put it really blunt about two decades ago. Her father was a socialist and had been sent to the camps. He was much worse of than all the Nazis with their pensions who informed on him. His work, forced labor, didn't result in a pension.

  11. LeaNder says:
    March 16, 2009 at 5:14 pm

    sorry, many typos. My head has already returned to the book, I am returning to now.

  12. Chris Berel says:
    March 16, 2009 at 5:20 pm

    Bill Pearlman? The famous body builder?

  13. littlehorn says:
    March 16, 2009 at 7:37 pm

    Fact: Zionists opposed the international boycott against Nazi Germany.

  14. David F. says:
    March 16, 2009 at 9:37 pm

    I also agree that an academic boycott is foolish and self-defeating.

    It is essential that nothing hamper discussion and the flow of information between Israel, Palestine, and the rest of the world.

    Harassing ordinary Israelis simply amplifies the Zionist trope that the entire world is against Jews in Israel.

    The real enabler of Israel's policies is the United States. If you want to see more realism in Israel, there must first be more realism in US policy towards Israel.

  15. Citizen says:
    March 17, 2009 at 7:33 am

    True, David, and Chas Freeman was booted to the curb; our Chicago politician was mute.

  16. HA says:
    March 17, 2009 at 9:33 am

    The Jew cries out in pain as he strikes you: old Polish proverb.

  17. Todd says:
    March 17, 2009 at 10:01 am

    Wouldn't it make more sense for academia to honestly debate issues than to arrange boycotts? I can understand not wanting to share technologies that Israeli scientists could then use against others, but boycotting across the board makes no sense to me.

    I assume that there is a political angle in South Africa's case that isn't present with Israel among many Americans. Boycotting South Africa allowed many of the boycotters to establish civil rights and political credentials. I'm sure that boycotting S.A. could be self-serving in America in ways that boycotting Israel isn't. It appears that 20 or 30 years ago, many more American journalists and members of academia felt like outsiders than is the case today. If that's true, then it says something about why these people are willing to discuss certain topics openly, while using boycotts and censorship for other issues. S.A. may have been boycotted, but it was also a major topic of negative discussion and news coverage. Israel gets quite a different treatment at nearly all areas and levels of American society that matter.

    I don't see a good reason to search for exact parallels for Israel's behavior since there will never be an exact fit. The unwillingness to go forward against Israel without an exact comparison between regimes just looks like stalling. Crimes and puinshments can be compared whether or not the regimes or ideologies are exactly the same. Besides, it's tricky deciding what group to tar with the Israeli brush. My guess is that the preferred targets would be undeserving of the distinction, and unwilling accept it. I think the Zionists should be forced into the dock on their own.

    Who cares what college administrators and professors do, anyway? There are more goofy wannabee activists in the group than grounded scholars at this point. As a group, are they likely to do much that matters?

  18. 5 dancing shlomos says:
    March 17, 2009 at 10:47 am

    ordinary israeli? what is this creature? an ordinary israeli is sweetly, occupying another's land, harassing and killing or supporting murder.

  19. stevieb says:
    March 17, 2009 at 12:02 pm

    I haven't had enough opportunity to examine Israeli academic institutions enough to pass judgment on whether they would be part of a general sanctions and boycott of Israeli institutions that give support for the occupation and to Israel's illegal WMDs, and the various international crimes of which it has yet to be accountable for.
    But if they were shown to be active in supporting any of these – than yes I think they should come under the boycott/sanctions/divestment course.

    For me the I/P conflict is not simply a matter of Israel's human rights abuses and war crimes – it is a matter of zionism which is a fascist movement international in scope.

    And it is probably the single biggest threat to the survival of our species next to global warming.

    And that – for those zionists who like to claim there is no good reason to single out Israel over other human rights abusers in the global community – is why it take precedent over other regimes.

    In other words, I concur with the majority European consensus that Israel is the biggest threat to world peace.

    And the most despicable ideology since Nazism.

  20. purity of arms says:
    March 17, 2009 at 1:47 pm

    That notorious anti-semite, Naomi Klein, is very much in favor of boycotts (and divestment and sanctions, too!) Smells like BDS spirit…

    She writes:

    “>link to nowtoronto.com

    She's right.

  21. TGGP says:
    March 17, 2009 at 1:54 pm

    Phil, are you actually going to deal with Stanley's argument against a boycott?

Leave a Reply